Isn’t it interesting that the North Koreans are trying to claim that T-Rump declared war? I am guessing that the supreme leader does not allow for education, let alone the subject of history.

It was after all the North Koreans that declared war by invading South Korea on June 25th, 1950.

That painful war, dragged on until July 27th, 1950 when they signed an armistice, not a peace treaty, but an armistice bringing an end to the fighting.

On at least six occasions, the North Koreans had backed out of the armistice. Obviously I do not want to see nuclear arms in play. Even in the “good guys’” hands, they are a terrible idea. But when a psychopath controls them (yes, in this case, both sides) it is a scary situation.

I am not normally a hawk, but it may be time to finish this one. The current regime appears to be hell bent to see some action. I am not saying that T-Rump is not without fault. The Hyper-Tweeting Orangutan has been bickering with Kim Jong Un like a school kid. If it were just saber rattling, we could just move on as long as the war does not heat back up. The events that led me to believe that we should bring this chapter to a decisive conclusion is that Kim Fatty the Third keeps escalating his testing of weapons that put millions/billions at risk.

It is time for us to make Kim yell out: 이런 벙커 버스터는 어디서 나온거야? (Holy shit, where did all of the bunker busters come from?)

Over the years, I have a ton of red flags thrown by the Republican leaning crown over this or that UN proposals.

More often than not, I am not too overly concerned about them. My lack of concern in general is that the UN is a spineless, and in general worthless organization, with only good intentions to share. Yes, They do help from time to time.

I have been watching (off an on) their proposed Small Arms Treaty. It brings to mind a few questions.

Even if two thirds of our Senate were to ratify the treaty, how binding would it be?

We know that we are fairly unique in our stance on, and right to, arms.

Can a treaty override the U.S. Constitution?

Would the Constitution have to be amended to fall in line with a treaty such as this one?

With regard to the UN treaty itself…

Snopes (Yes, once again I have to trumpet their efforts) has covered this topic.